Hazing proceedings undemocratic, unfair

Usually, fraternities get along well with men named Jack Daniel.

In light of Vice Provost… Usually, fraternities get along well with men named Jack Daniel.

In light of Vice Provost for Student Affairs and Dean of Students Daniel’s recent obfuscations concerning Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity’s suspension — which went against the judicial board’s advice to simply put TKE on probation — that relationship might not be amicable for long.

Daniel’s decision to go against the board’s recommendation, which he made at Associate Dean of Student Affairs Birney Harrigan’s suggestion, as detailed in a March 5 letter, brings into question the board’s entire purpose. If the board has no final say on a fraternity’s fate, why not call it an advisory board? And if its sole function is only advisory, why have it all?

Instead, Daniel has the absolute veto over the board’s decision. Moreover, the board’s proceedings are not open to the public; nor will Daniel comment on them, effectively shuttering what should be an open process.

Accusations of hazing only further fuel to the controversy surrounding TKE and the University’s treatment of the Greek system in general. TKE was brought before the board, but not because a pledge or member had filed a complaint.

Dawn Wilson — mother of Brett Wilson, a TKE pledge — sent a complaint to former Sorority and Fraternity Coordinator Anita Triggs concerning events she considered troubling. The Student Code of Conduct and Judicial Procedures states that “students and others” may bring a complaint — “others” meaning anyone from a pledge to a disgruntled parent.

Brett, in fact, maintains that his actions were voluntary, though the Code of Conduct completely removes a student’s right to decide his or her actions: “Any activity as described in this definition upon which … membership in an organization is directly or indirectly conditioned shall be presumed to be “forced “activity, the willingness of an individual to participate in such activity notwithstanding.”

So Brett’s opinion doesn’t matter. Nor does the fact that he didn’t bring the accusation. Instead, the accusations of someone not present at the scene of alleged hazing — and not a member of the University community — was enough to necessitate Triggs contacting, and questioning, TKE’s president Barron Sample.

Here’s the kicker, though: Sample admitted that his fraternity participated in some of the alleged activities — including providing alcohol to underage drinkers and purchasing alcohol in bulk, neither of which the Code of Conduct’s hazing provision proscribes directly — to Triggs. The admission was then used as evidence in the judicial board hearing.

Pitt punished Sample for his honesty and his sincere gesture in trying to improve his fraternity. Perhaps he should have been Mirandized and told that his words could and would be used against him, before having the book thrown at his fraternity.

If he was to be, in effect, put on trial, why not extend him the same rights as any citizen? Then again, considering that he was going before a kangaroo court, why bother?